Subscribe To

Thursday, 10 August 2017

The British press raises the spectre of nuclear war

The
right-wing (and alt-right) media in the US tends to agree that Trump
is right to “take out” North Korea and shouldn’t listen to
anyone else.

Meanwhile
the British press is more anxious (like the rest of us) and is
raising the ‘what-if” scenario of a nuclear war.

Never
mind Kim who I believe to be reflexively aggressive (not insane) but
the instability of the No.1 terrorist nation is a real worry. We have
different parts of the government saying different things while Trump
tweets from his golf course.

Alex
Jones and his supporters seem to think that rule- by-decree (or
rule-by-Twitter) is OK and is what needs to happen.

If
a nuclear bomb were to hit, these are the items should should keep to
hand.

the independentNorth
Korea on Tuesday reportedly launched its first intercontinental
ballistic missile — a rocket capable of travelling more than 3,400
miles with a weapon on top. The feat suggests that the isolated
country, one of nine nations that together wield more than 14,900
nukes, could strike Alaska.

However,
the rest of the US faces a much different and shadowy nuclear threat:
a terrorist-caused nuclear detonation, which is one of 15 disasters
scenarios that the federal government has planned for — just in
case.

"National
Planning Scenario No. 1 is a 10-kiloton nuclear detonation in a
modern US city," Brooke Buddemeier, a health physicist and
expert on radiation at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory, told
Business Insider. "A 10-kiloton nuclear detonation is equivalent
to 5,000 Oklahoma City bombings. Though we call it 'low yield,' it's
a pretty darn big explosion."

Buddemeier
couldn't say how likely such an attack might be today. But the
concern isn't unfounded, since weapons-grade nuclear materials have
proliferated in recent years, along with smaller, kiloton-class
bombs. And while governments do their best to safeguard
nuclear-weapons materials, there's no guarantee a terrorist couldn't
succeed in obtaining them.....

From the BBC

A
limited strike, full-scale invasion or pressure on China: MARK ALMOND
outlines the possible military options the US is considering against
North Korea

Mark
Almond, director of the Crisis Research Institute, Oxford, lists the
options open to Western leaders

We’re
used to blood curdling propaganda from Pyongyang, but an American
president using the same kind of language – ‘fire and fury’ –
is a new departure. The threat of nuclear war in East Asia is
suddenly alarmingly close.

But
before this hysterical rhetoric reaches a climax, Western leaders
must consider what history and strategic analysis teaches us about
how to avoid calamity – or how best to contain it.

The
devastating nature of the first Korean War in 1950-53 is a warning of
the huge costs of a second, which could also drag in countries as
close as Japan, as remote as Britain or as reluctant as China.

The
options Washington is considering, range from the tried-and-trusted –
to the once unthinkable.

Option
1: A Limited Strike

In
1994, President Clinton considered using strategic bombers to attack
North Korea’s nuclear facilities before an atomic weapon could be
produced.

Then,
as now, the US had a range of airbases in South Korea, Japan and Guam
from which to strike, with B1 bombers and cruise missiles plus its
fleet of nuclear aircraft carriers, each with more attack planes than
the entire RAF.

Clinton
decided against military action because of fears North Korea’s huge
ground force would wreak havoc across the South Korean border. A
major war would be needed to defeat it.

Today,
North Korea is far better prepared to survive even a severe air
attack by the US. Its nuclear forces are not sitting ducks. It has
repeatedly deployed mobile launchers so it can move and hide
missiles.

The
newer North Korean solid-fuelled missiles can also be launched much
more quickly than the older liquid-fuelled rockets. These
developments make neutralising Kim’s atomic warheads by a massive
airstrike far from fool-proof.

2:
Full-Scale Invasion

The
US military routed the North Koreans in the first Korean War, but the
US had many more troops and landing craft at its disposal. The
US navy facilitated the D-Day style landing on the coast behind the
North Korean Army, trapping it in the South.

North
Korea has no navy to speak of to protect its coastline, and it’s
tempting to imagine US Marines pouring ashore and marching to
Pyongyang, just as they did in October 1950. But this time the North
Korean army – ill-equipped but vast in size – would be waiting.
To win quickly and decisively the US would require the bulk of its
military man power to be deployed to Korea.

North
Korea said it is 'carefully examining' a plan to strike the U.S.
Pacific territory of Guam with missiles. The strike plan will be 'put
into practice in a multi-current and consecutive way any moment' once
leader Kim Jong Un (file above) makes a decision

But
Washington has other problems, from Afghanistan to Syria. War in
Korea would tie down the army and marines – unless South Korea’s
650,000 troops also took part. However, South Korea is reluctant to
engage in a pre-emptive war that would threaten Seoul and other
cities with destruction from the North.

Then
there is China. It is vehemently hostile to the US THAAD missile
defence system that has recently been deployed in South Korea.
Beijing’s fear is the real target of any US military action in the
region is ultimately China. To act without being sure of Chinese
neutrality runs the risk of a wider and far more perilous conflict –
World War III in all probability.

Even
if China was ready to accept the fall of Kim’s regime, a
conventional invasion would not be quick enough to prevent Kim
launching some kind of nuclear strike, as well as firing off his
stockpile of chemical and biological weapons.

The
North has as many as 60 nuclear bombs, according to US intelligence.
If only a couple were successfully launched at South Korea, the scale
of the casualties would be horrendous.

3:
A Decapitation Strike

A
successful set of airstrikes on North Korea’s nuclear stockpile
will not halt Kim’s ambitions. As long as the regime survives, it
will be attempt to rebuild. So knocking out the North Korean
leadership in a so-called decapitation strike is being widely touted
in Washington.

Smart
bombs could surely locate and kill Kim and his key commanders before
they could organise a deadly counter-attack?

Tens
of thousands of North Koreans gathered for a rally at Kim Il Sung
Square today carrying placards and propaganda slogans as a show of
support for their rejection of the United Nations' latest round of
sanctions

Unfortunately,
a successful strike wouldn’t stop a barrage of a rockets being
fired in instant retaliation.

In
any case, assassinating foreign leaders is easier said than done. It
would be a very lucky strike that took out Kim and his fellow
leaders. If it failed, Kim’s revenge would be indiscriminate
attacks aimed at South Korea, Japan and any US bases within range.

In
practice, a decapitation strike would mean all-out war. And even if
that was successful, a US-South Korean occupation of North Korea
could face guerrilla resistance using Kim’s poison gas and
bacteriological weapons.

Nor
would China – faced with the prospect of millions of refugees –
be pleased by a speedy collapse of Kim’s regime.

4:
A US nuclear strike

Hotheads
in Washington talk about using America’s massive nuclear
superiority to ‘eliminate’ N